2016 Non-Crows AFL Discussion - Cont. in Part 2 (link in OP)

[1970crow]

Caro asks the very correct question that goes to the heart of it all:

"The still-unsolved mystery of why no Essendon footballer in 2012 confided to anyone outside the club about the strange experimental treatment they were enduring appears to have inflicted more damage than they could have known at the time."

As much as anyone the AFLPA need to have a fricken hard look at themselves. They are not really a union. Were anyone at work asked to do something you thought a bit dangerous, you'd be on the phone to your union asking for advice on your rights.

She hasn't really posed a question at all. She's still peddling the pro-players AFL view by describing what is clearly wilful non-disclosure as some kind of mystery. The question to pose would be, "if the players didn't know anything was suss then why were any details of the program kept from trusted parties (eg managers) as well as ASADA during random testing". She's still not identifying the players as being culpable at all.

 

[Hank93]

Still annoyed by what happened yesterday.

No penalty from AFL, concessions galore to replace banned players, seemingly nothing to prevent Essendon gaining this year's number 1 pick, state league teams impacted.

AFL can say all they want about wanting clean sport but there's still a complete lack of integrity from AFL and others in industry regarding this issue.

 

[fairfooty]

If anything getting votes against juiced up players would have been harder.

Maybe so - but the bottom line is we have no idea how the umpires votes would have changed in the absence of Essendon - so we have no idea who actually would have been runner-up - in a multiple vote/ multiple game system then the votes might have fallen in completely different places. In a one off Olympic event this is not the case. So I still say to maintain the legitimacy and integrity of the Brownlow it would be better that no 2012 award is made. If it turns out that the runner-up is not the runner-up because the original votes changed win the absence of the Essendon votes then a false award is perpetuated. Anyway, just my thoughts.

 

[Jars458]

Sorry but you have no understanding of law. All evidence is circumstantial.

Not so. Plenty of evidence can be direct. For example the urine tests were direct evidence.

 

[Crow-eater]

Paul Marsh should keep his mouth shut. I understand that he needs to speak on behalf of the players....but he is in a position where he has to defend the players. Based on that a simple "Our thoughts are with the players at this time and we will provide them as much support we can based on the rulings." Done!

The "players are victims" crap is damaging the players association credibility if all they ever do is see no evil and hear no evil.

Considering he also represents the 400 odd other clean players in the AFL, as well as the Essendon players, his comments were mind boggling.

 

[Jars458]

Even more off is that it is being offered by 'The Ethics Centre'. He will be interviewed by Tracey Holmes, so yeah, will be a fluff piece and for him to sling mud at ASADA and now CAS while not understanding that he is now completely irrelevant and small fry.

He is lucky the members of the CAS panel have more class than him because they have gorunds to sue him for defamation given he accused them of miscarrying justice on no basis whatsoever.

 

[6BTS]

They should be pleased with the outcome. It is what is needed for sport to be clean. It doesn't matter if it is the local netball game, or a fight for an olympic medal. It is sport. No one should get away with cheating. Get your hands on Ben McDevitt's press conference yesterday. He stated quite clearly that he took no joy from the outcome in respect to the players, but he was pleased on behalf of those who want a clean sport.

Sorry but you have no understanding of law. All evidence is circumstantial. Law and Order or CSI should not be your understanding of how evidence works. Justice was most definitely done, by some incredibly learned lawyers.

The massive stain on the reputation of AFL was done by Essendon, their players, the AFL and now the AFLPA. Those are the ones responsible.

When I say circumstantial in the case of Essendon, they don't know if every player they suspended actually was injected with anything against the rules. They don't know if all the players were given Thymosin Beta-4. Now imagine if you're an Essendon player and you're told that what is being injected into you was all above board and it happens to be that you were one of the players that was never injected with anything banned. You're told you're doing nothing wrong, it might turn out that you did nothing wrong and now you're banned for 12 months but it's actually a 2 year suspension. In WADA's eyes that player is a drug cheat. Now is the act of not asking questions worth a 2 year ban if you're actually innocent? Is not asking questions worth 2 years?

 

[Cap]

When I say circumstantial in the case of Essendon, they don't know if every player they suspended actually was injected with anything against the rules. They don't know if all the players were given Thymosin Beta-4. Now imagine if you're an Essendon player and you're told that what is being injected into you was all above board and it happens to be that you were one of the players that was never injected with anything banned. You're told you're doing nothing wrong, it might turn out that you did nothing wrong and now you're banned for 12 months but it's actually a 2 year suspension. In WADA's eyes that player is a drug cheat. Now is the act of not asking questions worth a 2 year ban if you're actually innocent? Is not asking questions worth 2 years?

the problem is, that amount of circumstantial evidence, in conjunction with the secrecy weights the balance on probabilities that they did indeed do it.

What seems lost on many, is that if these guys had simply admitted it at the first go, it would have been all over years ago.

 

[Jars458]

When I say circumstantial in the case of Essendon, they don't know if every player they suspended actually was injected with anything against the rules. They don't know if all the players were given Thymosin Beta-4. Now imagine if you're an Essendon player and you're told that what is being injected into you was all above board and it happens to be that you were one of the players that was never injected with anything banned. You're told you're doing nothing wrong, it might turn out that you did nothing wrong and now you're banned for 12 months but it's actually a 2 year suspension. In WADA's eyes that player is a drug cheat. Now is the act of not asking questions worth a 2 year ban if you're actually innocent? Is not asking questions worth 2 years?

They have an obligation to know what they were injected with. They knew it was Thymosin. The only issue is whether it was B4 or not. There was plenty of cirucstmstanical evidnece to find that it was. The main point being that no other version would have any of the impacts that Dank was claiming. No point in going to all that trouble to inject some common garden vitamin (not a technical term).

Many cases are decided on circustmantial evidence. Presence of DNA for example.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Well, I could respond, but I don't debate people who jump at the chance to take cheap shots at me.

Wasn't a cheap shot mate. I provided plenty of points to back up my position even though you didn't provide anything other than a baseless rant and I called you on it.

 

[adelaidecrows]

They have an obligation to know what they were injected with. They knew it was Thymosin. The only issue is whether it was B4 or not. There was plenty of cirucstmstanical evidnece to find that it was. The main point being that no other version would have any of the impacts that Dank was claiming. No point in going to all that trouble to inject some common garden vitamin (not a technical term).

Many cases are decided on circustmantial evidence. Presence of DNA for example.

The key evidence on how they established that it was TB4 and not another variety is because it is the only form of Thymosin according to WADA and ASADA that would achieve Dank's desired outcome. So it wasn't that circumstantial, it is virtually a fact and not a stretch to link the thymosin ordered to EFC and the vials seen by players to it being TB4

 

[jackster83]

I think Essendon should be stripped of some of their blockbuster games for bringing the competition into disrepute. Why should they continue to get a financial leg up by participating in the ANZAC Day game? Plus they will be a rabble on field, which will likely mean a boring, one-sided game.

 

[adelaidecrows]

Gillon on AFL360 basically said that they will get to keep their draft picks this year. Given the likely "has beens" that will be playing for them this year the spoon is theirs for the taking which means plenty of presents ie No 1 draft pick and given this year the draft supposed to be one of the best in years they will be in a brilliant position in a few years time.

The irony of their systematic drug cheating and getting caught is that it will lead to a flag if they recruit well this year and next.

I will bet money they do not get a draft pick before the grandfinalists this year. It will be an end of first rounder. The 17 other clubs once the dust settles will demand Essendon do not get it I suspect. If they don't they are damaging the integrity of the game and as such all 17 clubs CEOs should resign along with Gill if Essendon received any first round draft picks ahead of clubs who have done nothing wrong.

 

[Jars458]

The key evidence on how they established that it was TB4 and not another variety is because it is the only form of Thymosin according to WADA and ASADA that would achieve Dank's desired outcome. So it wasn't that circumstantial, it is virtually a fact and not a stretch to link the thymosin ordered to EFC and the vials seen by players to it being TB4

Its a fact that TB4 is the only one that has that effect but it's a circumstatial inference that therefore what they took was B4. Not a great leap though I agree.

 

[adelaidecrows]

I think Essendon should be stripped of some of their blockbuster games for bringing the competition into disrepute. Why should they continue to get a financial leg up by participating in the ANZAC Day game? Plus they will be a rabble on field, which will likely mean a boring, one-sided game.

The AFL will not strip Essendon of the ANZAC day game because they feel that even though they are likely to be blown off the park Essendon have done a call to arms and are likely to pack the place. Money will win every time when it comes to these decisions.

 

[Cap]

Still annoyed by what happened yesterday.

No penalty from AFL, concessions galore to replace banned players, seemingly nothing to prevent Essendon gaining this year's number 1 pick, state league teams impacted.

AFL can say all they want about wanting clean sport but there's still a complete lack of integrity from AFL and others in industry regarding this issue.

I agree, the AFL come out of this looking as sleazy and a lesiure suit larry pick up line.

 

[Bovo]

When I say circumstantial in the case of Essendon, they don't know if every player they suspended actually was injected with anything against the rules. They don't know if all the players were given Thymosin Beta-4. Now imagine if you're an Essendon player and you're told that what is being injected into you was all above board and it happens to be that you were one of the players that was never injected with anything banned. You're told you're doing nothing wrong, it might turn out that you did nothing wrong and now you're banned for 12 months but it's actually a 2 year suspension. In WADA's eyes that player is a drug cheat. Now is the act of not asking questions worth a 2 year ban if you're actually innocent? Is not asking questions worth 2 years?

Have a read of the following:

http://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Arbitral_Award_WADA_ESSENDON.pdf

You understand why the AFL saw them as "not guilty" based on how they dealt with it, but then you find all the other information that WADA used. I just ask that you read this with an open view. Forget anyone is arguing about who was wrong or right and just have a read.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Not so. Plenty of evidence can be direct. For example the urine tests were direct evidence.

No they are not. They are still circumstantial. You can not ban someone on one urine test result. You have to also test the B sample, which has to show the same range as the A sample, before they consider that as evidence. Two 'circumstances' there making it more like direct evidence. Athletes have come up with other circumstances as to how a substance is showing up in their test. Therefore urine tests are not direct evidence and have never been considered so under doping violations.

 

[Legz]

The key evidence on how they established that it was TB4 and not another variety is because it is the only form of Thymosin according to WADA and ASADA that would achieve Dank's desired outcome. So it wasn't that circumstantial, it is virtually a fact and not a stretch to link the thymosin ordered to EFC and the vials seen by players to it being TB4

If I understood it correctly. The player signed consent forms stating they would take Thymosin, but not stating what version, and all 34 players admitted to receiving injections.

The circumstantial evidence is that TB4 is the only version capable of providing the results Dank had proclaimed he'd achieve, they were able to prove Dank had purchased TB4 during his tenure at Essendon, and finally that he had history of using TB4 with another athlete (Sandor Earls).

Not a huge leap really.

 

[Bovo]

I think Essendon should be stripped of some of their blockbuster games for bringing the competition into disrepute. Why should they continue to get a financial leg up by participating in the ANZAC Day game? Plus they will be a rabble on field, which will likely mean a boring, one-sided game.

I think for the fairness of the ANZAC game, key Wobbles players should sit out the rest of the year

 

[NikkiNoo]

When I say circumstantial in the case of Essendon, they don't know if every player they suspended actually was injected with anything against the rules. They don't know if all the players were given Thymosin Beta-4. Now imagine if you're an Essendon player and you're told that what is being injected into you was all above board and it happens to be that you were one of the players that was never injected with anything banned. You're told you're doing nothing wrong, it might turn out that you did nothing wrong and now you're banned for 12 months but it's actually a 2 year suspension. In WADA's eyes that player is a drug cheat. Now is the act of not asking questions worth a 2 year ban if you're actually innocent? Is not asking questions worth 2 years?

ASADA only charged those players they were sure the case could be upheld about the TB4. A team has more than 34 players and it was acknowledged that pretty much the whole team was involved, including rookies. Only 34 were charged. The evidence is available in the judgement released yesterday. I suggest you read it and it is very, very damming on the players. They are not innocent little victims the media, the AFL and the AFLPA are trying to push. Some in the media are now starting to understand that.

How about lying to ASADA representatives? How about lying by omission to a cardiologist who is trying to treat you? How about not following any of the processes that you have been told to follow? In order to have an attempt at a clean, level playing field, one innocent, one, might get labelled, but the totality of the evidence has now given me no sympathy for their continual partaking of this doping regime and in fact enabling it by their compliance and hiding evidence of it.

You do realise that under the drug code not telling testers where you are also carries a 2 year ban when there is a repeat offence occuring? A couple of aussie athletes found that out recently.

 

[adelaidecrows]

ASADA only charged those players they were sure the case could be upheld about the TB4. A team has more than 34 players and it was acknowledged that pretty much the whole team was involved, including rookies. Only 34 were charged. The evidence is available in the judgement released yesterday. I suggest you read it and it is very, very damming on the players. They are not innocent little victims the media, the AFL and the AFLPA are trying to push. Some in the media are now starting to understand that.

How about lying to ASADA representatives? How about lying by omission to a cardiologist who is trying to treat you? How about not following any of the processes that you have been told to follow? In order to have an attempt at a clean, level playing field, one innocent, one, might get labelled, but the totality of the evidence has now given me no sympathy for their continual partaking of this doping regime and in fact enabling it by their compliance and hiding evidence of it.

You do realise that under the drug code not telling testers where you are also carries a 2 year ban when there is a repeat offence occuring? A couple of aussie athletes found that out recently.

I wouldn't waste your time. He is clasping at straws based on the old naive attitudes of club sport in the Australia. We could throw facts at him all day and he will still wheel out James Hird style propaganda because thats what he has believed for the last 3 years.

 

[NikkiNoo]

I wouldn't waste your time. He is clasping at straws based on the old naive attitudes of club sport in the Australia. We could throw facts at him all day and he will still wheel out James Hird style propaganda because thats what he has believed for the last 3 years.

I can't get over how people think the code doesn't work for team sports. Sorry but cycling is a team sport. The only way they got Armstrong was because they went after the doping the WHOLE team did. The team was banned, and it's not the only one. The claim that there is a unique culture in aussie rules where you do what your coach tells you, does not take into account that this is pretty much the same in any sport at the highest level all over the world. You only have to look at the systemic cover up that has been revealed in respect to Russian Athletics. I have enough contacts in Europe to know what has occured in other sports in Russia that are incredibly shocking, but accepted as the only way a child can make it out of poverty, so the parents turn a blind eye. I have somewhere on one of my hard drives vision of a russian head coach picking a chair up and throwing it at a gymnast in full view of the public and other gymnasts and coaches. No one bats an eye. That coach is the head of the Technical Panel of the International Federation of Gymnastics. You want to compete, you don't cross her.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

 

[GrommoT]

Players may choose to exercise their rights of walking out on the club using the same clause Ryder was going to use if Essendon refused to trade him. Put it this way, I would be surprised if anymore than 6 of the 12 Essendon players went back to the club. The club completely screwed them.

Any A-grade midfielders among the non-returning lot?



[ would we? ]

 

[GROTTO]

Unofficially and I hope someone is more interested in checking these results in a little bit more detail, but if you exclude all Essendon game votes from the Brownlow ie votes that players got playing against the Dons, I declare Scott Thompson the 2012 Brownlow Medalist. Cotchin and Mitchell scored votes 3 and 2 votes respectively playing Essendon, Thommo didnt get any votes from playing the Dons hence his votes stand. I could be wrong, lol, so I hope someone looks and checks my quick review.

EDIT - RUCCI if you are reading this, I expect you to be all over this in the newspaper in the coming days.